Xref: utzoo soc.women:15418 news.groups:6654 soc.men:6544 news.admin:4399
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!actnyc!gcf
From: gcf@actnyc.UUCP (G Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.women,news.groups,soc.men,news.admin
Subject: Re: A Suggestion?
Message-ID: <1144@actnyc.UUCP>
Date: 29 Dec 88 12:33:12 GMT
References: <2457@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu. <1751@scolex. <1152@igloo.UUCP. <25715@sri-unix.SRI.COM. <739@optilink.UUCP>
Reply-To: gcf@actnyc.UUCP (G Fitch)
Followup-To: news.groups
Distribution: na
Organization: Eukaryotic
Lines: 40

maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes:
}. If an SA decides that his site will not carry ANY soc.groups, that's
}. a legitimate business decision. If an SA decides that he will not
}. carry soc.women, based on some personal difficulty with the group's
}. charter, flavor, politics, etc., as a cover for what is clearly
}. discrimination against the women posters of the group, it is NOT 
}. defensible as a business decision and IS liable to be labeled as
}. sexual discrimination. ...
}
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
}So tell me, Valerie, what would you do if there were a newsgroup called
}"soc.raping.women" in which men discussed their fantasies of raping
}women?  Would you feel an obligation to carry that group and redistribute
}it?  Or would you be so offended by it that you would remove it from
}your machine?

I don't know whether this is hysteria or dirty pool or what.  Is
Clayton Cramer trying to say that soc.women is somehow morally
equivalent to a newsgroup called "soc.raping.women"?  If so, it
is to me such an extreme view that I would like to see the evidence.
Or are we seeing another one of these rhetorical tricks where
a savage accusation is made which can later be denied because
it's made by implication?

If a group of women decide to boycott apparently male postings in
soc.women it's hardly rape from my point of view.  Can someone
explain how they're being raped if some other people choose not to
follow up their articles?

}I'm extremely offended by the hateful crap that has appeared in 
}soc.women over the last few years.  That's why it isn't on this machine
}(along with the rest of the soc.* groups).

Which leads to the questions "How do you know it's hateful crap, if
you don't read it?" and "What's hateful about the other soc groups?"
(According to that last paragraph, the other soc groups are not on
that machine either because soc.women contains hateful crap or the
other soc groups do.)

Follow-ups to news.groups.